NASA #1 Government Wikipedia editor

Down the memory chute it goes:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...he_number.html

Pat

Down the memory chute it goes:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...he_number.html

As a fairly active Wikipedia editor who has dabbled in some of the
space articles, I will say they could use some help. I don't think
I'd blame people at NASA for editing the articles (most of the
articles don't really have a lot of active editing/writing going on),
but I would say that the articles will be better if there is more work
done to track down better sources (to some extent non-NASA, to some
extent things like the NASA history office may be on average a bit
more balanced/interesting/complete than the "name, date, mission" kind
of summary that is easiest to find). For example, the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOFIA is a bit better than most (in that
it does have at least a mention of the project's cost overruns,
cancellation and uncancellation, with references). Most of them don't
even have that, much less a comprehensive history.

On the plus side, some of the articles are pretty good at covering the
technical aspects of the missions, including details which aren't
especially easy to find elsewhere.

On Aug 17, 3:30 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Down the memory chute it goes:http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...he_number.html

Pat

You call it editing, whereas instead it's called mainstream damage
control by NASA insiders that can publish absolutely anything and
everything on the fly without so much as a stitch of private
moderation.

Research or other official document hard numbers of what really
matters are either minimal or often missing entirely (aka need to know
or nondisclosure rated). Even their Saturn V is still a hocus-pocus
worth of conditional fly-by-rocket physics that simply can not be
replicated.
- Brad Guth

On Aug 18, 11:57 am, BradGuth wrote:
On Aug 17, 3:30 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

Down the memory chute it goes:http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...he_number.html

Pat

You call it editing, whereas instead it's called mainstream damage
control by NASA insiders that can publish absolutely anything and
everything on the fly without so much as a stitch of private
moderation.

Research or other official document hard numbers of what really
matters are either minimal or often missing entirely (aka need to know
or nondisclosure rated). Even their Saturn V is still a hocus-pocus
worth of conditional fly-by-rocket physics that simply can not be
replicated.
- Brad Guth

Dude please get some meds!

Carl